Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 13, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

BAN VIAGRA!....How dangerous is the "abortion pill"? Actually, it's not clear if it's killed anyone at all, but what if the worst is true and it turns out to be the culprit in all of the recent deaths in which it's been implicated? Kerry Howley reports:

If Mifepristone turns out to be the cause of death in all five possible cases, the pill's mortality rate will be under one in 100,000. Between 1988 and 1997 (before the abortion pill was approved) the mortality rate from legal induced abortion, according to the Centers for Disease Control, was 0.7 per 100,000.

....The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals cites a mortality rate of five per 100,000 for Viagra, the erectile dysfunction drug, and as Dr. Paul Blumenthal, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, puts it, "That's a risk men are willing to take to have erections."

How long do you think a conservative congressman would stay in office if he seriously spearheaded an effort to ban Viagra? Six months?

Kevin Drum 7:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (126)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

12.5 minutes

Posted by: Boronx on April 13, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

So if I take viagra and the abortion pill, my chances of death would be 6/100,000, if they are independent.

What is the probability of death by abortion pill given that I have taken viagra first?


Posted by: Matt on April 13, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

If he lasts more than four hours, call your doctor.

Posted by: Alf on April 13, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

"the mortality rate from legal induced abortion, according to the Centers for Disease Control, was 0.7 per 100,000."

Of course, from some conservative points of view, that number would be 100,000 per 100,000. But that's another story.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

If he lasts more than four hours, call your doctor.

Why? Is she cute?

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

I once wrote an editorial with a similar theme, comparing Viagra to Ecstacy, saying that if fat, impotent, rich old white guys were using Ecstacy in large numbers, and experiencing the same mortality rate, X would not only be legal but advertised.

Posted by: Charles on April 13, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

How long...?

Posted by: Hostile on April 13, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

That's right: impotence is God's way of telling you you shouldn't have sex. Chemically-induced ertections are sacreligious.

Posted by: BroD on April 13, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK
Of course, from some conservative points of view, that number would be 100,000 per 100,000. But that's another story.

Well, yeah, assuming you mean the conservative "embryos count but women don't" point of view.

(If women counted, that'd be 100,000.7 per 100,000.)

Posted by: cmdicely on April 13, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,
Actually, if they counted both women and embryos, that would be 100,000.7 per 200,000. Assuming, of course, that the drug is 100% successful in inducing abortion.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 13, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

We need a new abottion ethic, perhaps check with the embryo, and if the embryo doesn't like the parents, abort them and get new ones.

Posted by: Matt on April 13, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

"I once wrote an editorial with a similar theme, comparing Viagra to Ecstacy, saying that if fat, impotent, rich old white guys were using Ecstacy in large numbers, and experiencing the same mortality rate, X would not only be legal but advertised."

Your point being...???

Posted by: Wraith on April 13, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

How dangerous is the "abortion pill"? Actually, it's not clear if it's killed anyone at all.

Um, I'd say it's abundantly clear that it's killed millions of people. They're called the unborn.

Posted by: Fan of Al on April 13, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

The maternal mortality rate from completing a pregnancy and giving birth is approximately 10 deaths per 100,000 live births, so even if the abortion pill caused 1 death per 100,000 women, it would still be about 10 times safer than finishing the pregnancy.

Posted by: Morgan on April 13, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

They'll pry Viagra (and it's more convenient cousin Cialis) out of my cold, dead hands.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on April 13, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

I have taken RU 486 and, as unfun as that was, at least I knew my risk of complications and even death were much smaller than a surgical abortion, or even a full term pregnancy. Why make it harder for women? Oh right, because we are women.

Posted by: mary on April 13, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

"I once wrote an editorial with a similar theme, comparing Viagra to Ecstacy, saying that if fat, impotent, rich old white guys were using Ecstacy in large numbers, and experiencing the same mortality rate, X would not only be legal but advertised."

Your point being...??? Posted by: Wraith

If this needs to be explained to you, I suggest you stay away from both. I'd avoid alcohol, too ("Alcohol, getting ugly people laid for 5,000 years!).

Posted by: Jeff II on April 13, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II

Your concern is touching. You didn't answer the question, though.

Posted by: Wraith on April 13, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Assuming, of course, that the drug is 100% successful in inducing abortion.

And assuming everyone who takes it has definitely had an egg that has been fertilized before taking it. Pardon my ingnorance, but isn't it a pill that is taken "just in case"?

Posted by: Vladi G on April 13, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

"spearheaded an effort to ban Viagra"

Interesting choice of words.

Posted by: Joel on April 13, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Your concern is touching. You didn't answer the question, though.

His point being that the health implications of a drug are often less important than the political implications of banning it. It's easy to outlaw drugs that teenagers and young adults like. They don't vote, and they don't donate. It's not so politically expedient to outlaw drugs that rich white men like, and on whose sales big Pharma is getting very very rich.

Of course, if ecstacy were legal, I'm sure big Pharma would be involved in its production.

But really, you shouldn't have needed that explained to you.

Posted by: Vladi G on April 13, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Vladi:

It's important not to confuse RU486, which induces "chemical" abortion, with the "morning after" or "just in case" pill, which, as I understand it, simply prevents implantation. Those who define the use of a "morning after" pill as "abortion" are, IMO, stretching the definition way out of shape.

I don't believe that the "morning after pill," which is the one many people want to be over the counter, has the problems RU486 does. I think it's basically a big dose of the kind of hormones used in birth control pills.

Of course no medicine, no matter how benign, is completely free of all side effects.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

"His point being that the health implications of a drug are often less important than the political implications of banning it. It's easy to outlaw drugs that teenagers and young adults like. They don't vote, and they don't donate."

So what? If young adults choose not to vote or otherwise participate in the political process, that's their problem.

Posted by: Wraith on April 13, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

"Of course, if ecstacy were legal, I'm sure big Pharma would be involved in its production."

Probably. Again, so what? Why shouldn't "big Pharma" be involved in its production, if it were legal?

Posted by: Wraith on April 13, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

The more interesting statistic is how many women get orgasms during conception sex which results in an abortion.

I mean, in how many of these instances did the woman really go after that rush, the squeeze, that muscle tightening eruption? And then get pregnant accidentally.

Most of these abortions were the result of dumbshit males trying to out do dad, and dumbshit females thinking that is love.

Posted by: Matt on April 13, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, if ecstacy were legal, I'm sure big Pharma would be involved in its production.

But really, you shouldn't have needed that explained to you. Posted by: Vladi G

Thanks for the effort Vladi but, unless he/she/it is really that thick, I get the impression that he/she/it was one of those four years olds who, after you've answered his question in the plainest terms possible, would respond ad nauseum, "But why?"

Posted by: Jeff II on April 13, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Of course no medicine, no matter how benign, is completely free of all side effects."

Nor is pregnancy.

"Most of these abortions were the result of dumbshit males trying to out do dad, and dumbshit females thinking that is love."

Posted by a consumate dumbshit.

Posted by: Joel on April 13, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

"I get the impression that he/she/it..."

I get the impression that Jeff II (s/h/it) is a total moron.

Posted by: Wraith on April 13, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Um, I'd say it's abundantly clear that it's killed millions of people. They're called the unborn.

Posted by: Fan of Al on April 13, 2006 at 8:11 PM

So, a multi-cell blastocyst is a person?!? I always thought a person had things like, you know, legs, a a face, fingers, a mind...

Posted by: mrjauk on April 13, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

I used Viagra once. It worked great but I still didn't have a girlfriend. Sometimes I wish my mother had used RU486. Happy Easter everybody!

Posted by: sadsack on April 13, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, in how many of these instances did the woman really go after that rush, the squeeze, that muscle tightening eruption? And then get pregnant accidentally.

maybe you should go write cheap porn for Hustler.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum's blog is getting pathetic.

Posted by: MountainDan on April 13, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Fan of Al,

If a blastocyst is potential life deserving of preservation, aren't plain old eggs and sperm potential life as well?

But by your logic menstruation and masturbation would be crimes on an unimaginable scale. Ovicide! Spermicide!! Yikes!!! 99 percent of us have a one-way ticket down the road to perdition.

You must be among the one percent. Good for you. Just spare us the sanctimony.

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on April 13, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Deaths associated with Viagra use aren't surprising because many of the men who use the drug are quite old.

Posted by: Peter on April 13, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

The blog itself is pretty good. It's the comments that are getting pathetic. There used to be some really good, thoughtful discussions, but there's a contingent of hard-left commenters who just seem determined to bring every thread down with a barrage of name calling and personal attacks any time anyone disagrees with them.

Posted by: Tom2 on April 13, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Actually I think they might survive. Rich old farts could get viagra anyway and plenty of crackpot republicans(and some democrats) stay in safe districts despiteswhatever stupid stuff they do"

Posted by: rtaycher1987 on April 13, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

". . . but there's a contingent of hard-left commenters who just seem determined to bring every thread down . . ."

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Posted by: Joel on April 13, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

The religious right's real objection to the abortion pill is that it doesn't kill as many women as coathangers do...

Posted by: Rich1 on April 13, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

The more interesting statistic is how many women get orgasms during conception sex which results in an abortion.

????? where are you going with this, oh wandering troll ????

You know, if women only got pregnant through sex that resulted in female orgasm, the fertility of the human race would be significantly lower. 6 billion people didn't spring out of 6 billion individual orgasms, that's for damn sure.

Posted by: Librul on April 13, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

"You know, if women only got pregnant through sex that resulted in female orgasm..."

I would think that the celebration of conception should include a female orgasm even if the poor women has to whack off.

If the gal is having sex for fun, then why not at least whack off to completion, or instruct the dumbshit male on the techniques of good oral.

If the gal is having sex because the poor idiot has some masculinity problem, then the gal should dump the bozo and get an education, or a girlfriend.

God knows how many women fake argasms well into marriage, and many of them beyond that just to fool the neighbors.

Posted by: Matt on April 13, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

"That's a risk men are willing to take to have erections."

Man, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that.

Posted by: shingles on April 13, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's important not to confuse RU486, which induces "chemical" abortion, with the "morning after" or "just in case" pill, which, as I understand it, simply prevents implantation.

Actually, it prevents ovulation, not implantation. The most current studies show that it has no effect at all on implantation. The egg is not released, so fertilization never happens.

And yet this lack of fertilization is "abortion" to some people.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on April 13, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'm confused. Is it mostly conservatives who need Viagra? BroD (7:48) is on the right track... the correct track.

Posted by: PW on April 13, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

heh. Make that 6 billion female orgasms, or 12 billion total.

Posted by: Librul on April 13, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Go to a conservative site such as townhall. Note the ads scattered about. Impotence pills, weight loss, and how to make money. Are the majority of their readers poor fat and impotent?

Posted by: BunnyPancake on April 13, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

My guess is that if anyone tried to ban ViaCiaLevira they people would be more outraged than they are about Iraq.....so what does that say about our country?

http://www.thevelvethottub.com
http://www.velvethottub.com

THE VELVET HOT TUB

Posted by: rocco99 on April 14, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Are the majority of their readers poor fat and impotent?

It's all about knowing your audience.

Posted by: Irony Man on April 14, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

How long do you think a conservative congressman would stay in office if he seriously spearheaded an effort to ban Viagra? Six months?

Funny.
Spearheaded.
Funny.

Posted by: koreyel on April 14, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

mnemosyne,

No one knows how the "morning after" pill works in all cases. There is evidence that in some cases it works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, not by preventing fertilization.

Are morning-after pills abortion or contraception?

"Emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill" and marketed in this country as "Plan B," is a drug that a woman can take after sex but before an embryo attaches to her womb. If you don't know much about this murky week in the reproductive process, it's time to learn. Lawmakers in many states are deciding right now whether EC will be easy or hard to get. Some say it causes abortions. Some say it only prevents them. And the dirty little secret is, nobody really knows. ...

"That's the idea behind Plan B. "It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg," says the manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. However, Barr adds, the drug "may also prevent the fertilization of an egg" or prevent a fertilized egg "from attaching to the uterus."

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

Well, we have about 22 instances (108-109th Congress) to limit, if not ban it, e.g.:

  • HR 1852 -- Equity in Fertility Coverage Act of 2003 to ensure that "A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, that provides for coverage of impotency medications such as viagra shall also provide coverage of fertility treatments" (also introduced in 2005). That one died. Twice.
  • HR 2626 -- To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit coverage under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs of sex-enhancing drugs for individuals convicted of a sex offense. Which amends the SSA, "Such term also does not include prescription drugs, such as Viagra , used for sex enhancement for any individual who has been convicted of a sex offense, as defined by the Secretary and including rape, sexual assault, and child molestation." That one died or was revised several times.
  • HR3971 -- QI, TMA, and Abstinence Programs Extension and Hurricane Katrina Unemployment Relief Act of 2005, SEC. 103. ELIMINATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF DRUGS USED FOR TREATMENT OF SEXUAL OR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION. Which states that, "Such term also does not include a drug when used for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction, unless such drug were used to treat a condition, other than sexual or erectile dysfunction, for which the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration." That one passed.
Leave it to the Republicans to pass the bill that mixed abstinence, unemployment and hurricane relief. Whatever works I guess.

Posted by: has407 on April 14, 2006 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

USeless commentary by Kevin Drum once again. Look, i'm a leftist, I'm an independent, but his attempt to smear everything in leftist and rightist terms reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. I'm sorry, but if the left disintegrates into this type of behavior, then it will have provben that Republicans are right: blast your own [politics, to hell with truth or with america. Shame on you, Kevin, but I'm no longer suprised.

Posted by: Chris on April 14, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, by the way, you useless commentarian: abortion pills have killed a lot more "people" than you are counting. Oddly enough, you forget the potential babies that the abortion pill is designed to kill in your count. Add that in, and the abortion pill is right up there with cars and guns.

Posted by: chris on April 14, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum's blog is getting pathetic.

And yet here you are.

Posted by: craigie on April 14, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

At least Kevin Drum's pathetic blog didn't kill 100,000 Iraqis!

Posted by: craigie on April 14, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

And yet this lack of fertilization is "abortion" to some people.

Of course, and 100% of Viagra use is to create another new son or daughter, and not, say, grampa trying to re-find the glory days of his youth now that he doesn't have to worry about gramma being fertile anymore.

I think we can safely update the lyrics now to "Every Egg Is Sacred."

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on April 14, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

"spearheaded"?!

Posted by: Nancy Irving on April 14, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Viagra is quite dangerous, and it's a scandal that the media hasn't raised a stink about it for fearing of sounding uncool and anti-sex.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on April 14, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

So what? If young adults choose not to vote or otherwise participate in the political process, that's their problem.

Is this really so complicated for you Wraith? You seem to be being deliberately obtuse. The point is that public health policy is being driven, not by any sound medical rationale, but by political expediencies. A rational person, one who is actually concerned about public health, should find this disturbing. Its very similar to the point that Kevin is making in his post.

Now maybe you disagree with this. Maybe all of the people who are complaining about Kevin raising this point believe that either 1. Kevin is distorting the underlying reality of public health policy or 2. believe that this particular set of policies (pro-Viagra and anti-abortion pill, or pro-Viagra and anti-ecstacy in your case Wraith) are reasonable. If so, they should try to defend this position, not whine to Kevin about raising the question in the first place. And what they should certainly not do, as you are doing Wraith, is pretend not to even understand the basic point that is being raised. Saying that young people should vote more is almost the exact opposite of a solution to the problem as it is being discussed. The point is that these decisions shouldn't be driven by politics at all. Yeesh.

Posted by: brent on April 14, 2006 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

Get more details about trading here.

Posted by: OnlineForex on April 14, 2006 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINK

" . . . abortion pills have killed a lot more "people" than you are counting. Oddly enough, you forget the potential babies that the abortion pill is designed to kill in your count."

The Blastocyst-American undercount is a scandal!

Posted by: Joel on April 14, 2006 at 7:36 AM | PERMALINK

How dangerous is the "abortion pill"? Actually, it's not clear if it's killed anyone at all.

Um, I'd say it's abundantly clear that it's killed millions of people. They're called the unborn.

Posted by: Fan of Al on April 13, 2006 at 8:11
uhh...I'd call them unborn/unwanted

Posted by: unfan of al on April 14, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

fertilized egg /= people

Posted by: Librul on April 14, 2006 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

"The religious right's real objection to the abortion pill is that it doesn't kill as many women as coathangers do..."
Posted by: Rich1

One does get the feeling from the anti-abortionist crowd that they miss the good ole coathanger days when doctors with revoked licenses could use their entrepreneurial spirit to meet a market need.

Posted by: Ace Franze on April 14, 2006 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

there is no 'dirty little secret' that 'nobody really knows' how EC works. it works by suppressing ovulation. if it worked at preventing implantation, then it would be effective for up to a week after sex. however, it has to be taken within three days.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

fertilized egg /= people - Librul

Fertilized egg = potential people

I mean if we are going to keep pushing the line back to meet an agenda how about unfertilized eggs? How about sperm? How about the ham sandwich I am about to eat because once it is broken down and absorbed in my body proteins and nutrients from it could potentially be recombined INTO sperm?

To equate a fertilized egg with a person is ridiculous because until it draws its first breath it is about as viable as a coma patient on life support.

Oh, and protect ham sandwiches now! Lunch is murder!

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on April 14, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Wraith = Don P.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 14, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Humans have a long history of trying to "manage" births.

When childhood diseases and attacks by predators reduced survival into adulthood it made sense to procreate constantly.

Now we need to reduce our fecundity.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 14, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Wraith = Don P = Charlie = Cheney

i miss the real Don P.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum's blog is getting pathetic.
Posted by: MountainDan

You should feel right at home

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

i miss the real Don P.

You're not missing him. He is the one calling you a bitch, petulant child, etc., in the other thread.

Posted by: donnybrook on April 14, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

You're not missing him. He is the one calling you a bitch, petulant child, etc., in the other thread.

the real Don P did not act like that. charlie just started using his handle.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

MountainDan,

Hmmm, "MountainDan," is that what your boyfriends do?

"What are we doing today? MountainDan."

Or maybe you are compensating for, ummm, something.

Posted by: Tripp on April 14, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Personally I think getting rid of erections would SAVE THE WORLD in, OH, so many ways! This "mine's bigger than yours" is what's gotten us into most of the messes already!

Posted by: Dancer on April 14, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

USeless commentary by Kevin Drum once again. Look, i'm a leftist, I'm an independent, but his attempt to smear everything in leftist and rightist terms reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. I'm sorry, but if the left disintegrates into this type of behavior, then it will have provben that Republicans are right: blast your own [politics, to hell with truth or with america. Shame on you, Kevin, but I'm no longer suprised.

This is a political blog. Of course Kevin is going to discuss the political aspects of certain stories. At any rate, this story wouldn't be a story if it weren't for the political side of it - the two are inextricable.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 14, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Who cares about Blastocyst-Americans, the real concern here are the Homunculi-Americans contained in every sperm and egg! Everybody knows that if you look at a sperm under a microscope, there's a tiny little Navy Seal in a wetsuit waving back at you. And if you look at an egg, it ain't nothing but Eve herself (minus the figleaf) peering coyly over her should at you.

Masturbation is the number one leading cause of death of spermatoidal homunculi in America. It's a full-blown genocide, and we should all be enraged! And don't even get me started on the evils of menstruation....

Posted by: Seamus on April 14, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

spacebaby = cmdicely = Pale Rider = shortstop = haha = obscure = charlie = Don P = Jeff II = Kevin Drum.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK
i miss the real Don P.

The old Don P. is still around, I think -- the most recent alias he's used seems to be "jibjab", unless I've missed a newer one.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

hey, charlie, did i strike a nerve?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

"The point is that public health policy is being driven, not by any sound medical rationale, but by political expediencies."

Not according to "Vladi G." If that was Charles' point, it has nothing to do with the statement he made about viagra and ecstasy.

"Saying that young people should vote more is almost the exact opposite of a solution to the problem"

No, young people voting more would be an excellent solution the problem of young people's legitimate public policy interests not being satisfied by the political process. But I deny that the legalization of ecstasy is a legitimate public policy interest, and I see no evidence that young people in general think ecstasy should be legalized anyway.

Posted by: Wraith on April 14, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

The old Don P. is still around, I think -- the most recent alias he's used seems to be "jibjab", unless I've missed a newer one.

could be that "no pills for spacebaby" really was Don P. the rant that drew the trolling was in response to a post by 'jibjab'. i used to respect Don P a couple of years ago as a good contributor, and never would have pegged him as a Charlie.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

jibjab = cmdicely

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

trolling = stupid loser

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

No, young people voting more would be an excellent solution the problem of young people's legitimate public policy interests not being satisfied by the political process. But I deny that the legalization of ecstasy is a legitimate public policy interest, and I see no evidence that young people in general think ecstasy should be legalized anyway.

I see. Deliberate obtuseness it is then.

Posted by: brent on April 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby = stupid loser

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

come on, trolly troll. you can do better than that. if my arguments are wild, insane, abnormal, unsupported accusations, you should be able to easily fisk i said.

if every last bit of my share of our exchange is completely devoid of facts, then you should be able to take it down. in fact, the text in your meticulously sourced footnotes for your response should contain twice as many words as my allegedly crazed and abnormal posts on the last pharmacist's Right (to discriminate against women) thread.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

"there is no 'dirty little secret' that 'nobody really knows' how EC works. it works by suppressing ovulation."

No, in some cases EC may work be preventing ovulation, in others it may work by preventing fertilization of an ovulated egg, and in others it may work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

Posted by: Janus on April 14, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Actually the mortality rate for legal abortion is 100,000.7 per 100,000.

Posted by: lee on April 14, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby = trolly troll

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

No, in some cases EC may work be preventing ovulation, in others it may work by preventing fertilization of an ovulated egg, and in others it may work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

okay. where's your proof? if it was effective at preventing implantation, why doesn't it work for up to a week after sex? it takes that long for conception and implantation to take place.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby = trolly troll

i'm still waiting for the calm, reasoned, well-sourced arguments that will totally destroy my assertion the pharmacists' rights is just a front for attacking women's access to basic health care.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

"okay. where's your proof?"

Proof of what? Where's your proof that EC never works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, or through other post-fertilization effects? The drug's own manufacturer acknowledges that EC may work in this way, as does Princeton University's EC Information Center, the National Institutes of Health, and every other professional source I have seen. Show me your "proof" that they are all wrong.

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

my assertion the pharmacists' rights is just a front for attacking women's access to basic health care

What the hell are you talking about, spacebaby? No one except you has said anything about pharmacists.

Posted by: Morgan on April 14, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

What the hell are you talking about, spacebaby? No one except you has said anything about pharmacists.

this post is a continuation of the discussion about the gender bias in 'moral' objections to certain health care services and medications. refusal clauses for pharmacists are part of that. pardon me for referring to a discussion that took place on another thread for a post in which kevin wrote about a pharmacy in seattle that is refusing to fill prescriptions for women who got them at a women's health clinic that provides abortion services.

since this troll keeps harassing me, my response to focus on a relevant topic instead of the personal attacks directed at me.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Where's your proof that EC never works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, or through other post-fertilization effects?

if it works to prevent implantation (which takes up to eight days after fertilization), then why isn't EC effective for up to a week after sex? i have asked this question at least three times already. it is a relevant question.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

from the population council:

MEDIA CENTER News Release

Emergency Contraception Prevents Fertilization,
Not Implantation, Studies Show

NEW YORK (2 May 2005) Recent research by members of the Population Councils International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR) and other scientists shows that emergency contraceptive pills appear to work by interfering with ovulation, thus preventing fertilization of the egg. They do not appear to disrupt postfertilization events, such as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.

Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy most effectively when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. The researchers studied levonorgestrel, a progestin widely used for regular hormonal contraception that is also used for emergency contraception. Emergency contraception has been the subject of heated debate. At issue is the methods mechanism of action: does it prevent the meeting of egg and sperm, or does it prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus? A method that allows the fertilization of an egg but prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus may be considered abortifacient by some.

... more ...

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

if it works to prevent implantation (which takes up to eight days after fertilization), then why isn't EC effective for up to a week after sex?

I don't know why it isn't effective for up to a week.

I ask again, where is your "proof" that EC never works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, or through some other post-fertilization effect?

from the population council:

All your link states is that some "recent" research "appears to show" that EC works by interfering with ovulation. It does not claim that EC never works after fertilization. It does not claim to "prove" that EC never works after fertilization. And the research isn't particularly "recent," anyway. It's from December 2004.

So I'm still waiting for your "proof" that the drug's own manufacturer, the Princeton EC Information Center, the National Institutes of Health, and all other sources that state that EC may work after fertilization are all wrong.

You made the claim. Substantiate it.

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Blogged it:

http://scorpio.typepad.com/eccentricity/2006/03/sauce_for_the_g.html

Posted by: Scorpio on April 14, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

"this post is a continuation of the discussion about the gender bias in 'moral' objections to certain health care services and medications"

No one has even mentioned pharmacists except you.

Posted by: Morgan on April 14, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

No one has even mentioned pharmacists except you.

and i gave you an explanation for that. so, what is your problem?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

So I'm still waiting for your "proof" that the drug's own manufacturer, the Princeton EC Information Center, the National Institutes of Health, and all other sources that state that EC may work after fertilization are all wrong.

i gave you a link to a reputable source. i also asked why EC is not effective for up to a week after fertilization if it does, in fact, prevent implantation. you have repeatedly refused to address that. want more links? here is another:

... Over the past few years, however, scientists have learned that this assumption is incorrect. When Plan B is taken as a one-day, emergency contraceptive, it impedes the hormone surge that releases a woman's egg from her ovary.

This conclusion arises from two independent lines of research:

The first consists of studies that have observed the changes in human female chemistry and reproductive anatomy when women take levonorgestrel. A thorough review of these studies by researchers from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden concluded that Plan B, taken as an emergency contraceptive, does not cause changes in the uterine lining but delays or blocks ovulation, probably by impeding the surge of a hormone that triggers it.

In other words, it does not interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg.

... more ...


Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

"this post is a continuation of the discussion about the gender bias in 'moral' objections to certain health care services and medications"

No one has even mentioned pharmacists except you.

sorry morgan. i think this is the troll again. hey, loser! how are you? still haven't got anything but personal attacks and childish pranks to contribute. don't worry. at least god loves you.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

i gave you a link to a reputable source

As I told you, your "reputable source" does not claim that EC never works after fertilization, let alone claims that this has been "proved." The drug's own manufacturer, as well as Princeton University's EC information center, federal health agencies, and every other reputable source I have seen all state that EC may work in some cases after fertilization. I'm still waiting for your "proof" that they are all wrong.

Your latest link, to an article on the website of the "Family Planning Association of Maine" also does not support your claim. It merely cites some research that did not find a postfertilization effect. In fact, the author states that "this evidence is not conclusive." Do you even read your own links?

For the umpteenth time, where is your "proof?"

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

"and i gave you an explanation for that. so, what is your problem?"

Your "explanation" was completely nonsensical. No one has even mentioned pharmacists here except you, so who are you "waiting" for this "argument" from?

Posted by: Morgan on April 14, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

more information:

Emergency Contraception Is Not Abortion.

Emergency contraception cannot end a pregnancy.
According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if the woman is pregnant ..." (FDA, 1997). A recent study found that most often, ECPs reduce the risk of pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation (Marions, et al., 2002). More recent studies demonstrate that progestin-only ECPs only work by preventing ovulation or fertilization, and have no effect on implantation (Croxatto, et al, 2003; Ortiz, et al., 2004). Scientific authorities agree that emergency contraception reduces the risk of pregnancy and helps prevent the need for abortion; it itself is not a form of abortion (Grimes, 1997; Guillebaud, 1998; Hughes, 1972; Stewart, et al., 2004).

... more ...

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

I too would like to see your "proof" that Emergency Contraception always works before fertilization. You have not cited anything that supports this claim.

Posted by: oregon on April 14, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

more information:

Yet again, your source does not claim that EC never works after fertilization, let alone that this has been "proved." It says only that "A recent study found that most often, ECPs reduce the risk of pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation." Hint for the language impaired: "most often" does not mean "always." "Most often" does not mean "in all cases."


Where is your "proof" that EC never works after fertilization? The sources I have cited all state that in some cases EC may work after fertilization. You have provided absolutely nothing that refutes this expert opinion.

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Your latest link, to an article on the website of the "Family Planning Association of Maine" also does not support your claim. It merely cites some research that did not find a postfertilization effect. In fact, the author states that "this evidence is not conclusive." Do you even read your own links?

For the umpteenth time, where is your "proof?"

i did read the links. in fact, i've read most of them before when dealing with this the ass-hatted notion that BIRTH CONTROL PILLS cause abortions. EC is nothing more than birth control. i have given you links to established and reputable authorities presenting the results of RECENT research showing no effect on implantation. your obstinate refusal to accept them is your own choice, but i'm not going to dance around providing link after link so you can childishly stamp your foot and declare, "Not good enough!"

and for the umpteenth time: it takes up to eight days for a fertilized egg to implant into a uterus. if EC prevented implantation, then it would work for up to a week after sex, the time during which a fertilized egg travels to the uterus and implants. because it doesn't prevent pregnancy during this time period, ergo, it doesn't prevent implantation.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I too would like to see your "proof" that Emergency Contraception always works before fertilization. You have not cited anything that supports this claim.

i've provided links to research supporting my claims. for those of you who have even the most passing familiarity with scientific research in pharmaceuticals, there is rarely any research that prove something 'always' does one thing exactly the same way every single time.

since you want to focus on the terminology i used because it allows you to refuse to discuss the content of the links i provided, i will change my choice of words from 'proof' to 'evidence'. satisfied, now?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

"and i gave you an explanation for that. so, what is your problem?"

Your "explanation" was completely nonsensical. No one has even mentioned pharmacists here except you, so who are you "waiting" for this "argument" from?

hi, troll. did the pharmcist refuse to fill your prescription today?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

i did read the links.

If you had read them, you would know that none of them are "proof," or even claim to be proof, that EC never works after fertilization. That is something you made up out of thin air.

The manufacturer of Plan B, Barr Pharmaceuticals, the EC Information Center at Princeton University, the federal Food and Drug Administration, and all other reputable sources clearly state that Emergency Contraception may act in some cases AFTER FERTILIZATION HAS OCCURRED.

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

His tenure in congress would last a lot longer than his marriage.

Posted by: Ted on April 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

"if emergency contraception is taken after the sperm and egg have already joined (but before the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine wall), pregnancy may still be prevented by inhibition of transport through the tubes or implantation in the uterus. So, sometimes emergency contraception prevents fertilization, and sometimes it prevents implantation after fertilization has already occurred."
--MedlinePlus, National Institutes of Health
[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007014.htm]

"Plan B works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb)."
--Barr Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Plan B
[http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx]

"... EC could also prevent implantation ..."
--Planned Parenthood of America
[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/ec/pub-emergency-contraception.xml]

"Emergency contraceptive pill referred to simply as "emergency contraception," "ECPs," or "ECs", or "morning-after pill" are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilisation, or the subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg (zygote)."
--Wikipedia
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill]

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

If you had read them, you would know that none of them are "proof," or even claim to be proof, that EC never works after fertilization. That is something you made up out of thin air.

the meaning of 'proof' is more flexible than you are trying to pretend. it is also a synonym for 'evidence'. it doesn't not necessarily mean 'completely and totally 100 percent unimpeachable'. there is a difference between 'zero probability' and 'no chance.'

"if emergency contraception is taken after the sperm and egg have already joined (but before the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine wall), pregnancy may still be prevented by inhibition of transport through the tubes or implantation in the uterus. So, sometimes emergency contraception prevents fertilization, and sometimes it prevents implantation after fertilization has already occurred."

where is the supporting research showing this to be the case? my links contained information about actual clinical experiments.

i cannot, for example, 'prove' that if i squeeze my butthole real tight, it will never disappear. i can, however, conduct experiments that provide evidence that it does not disappear when i squeeze it real tight. in order to prove that it will 'never' disappear, i would have to conduct an infinite number of experiments, and if, in fact, my butthole doesn't disappear in any of these experiments, then i have 'proven' that it 'never' happens. when human beings in normal situations talk about 'proof' they mean 'supporting evidence'. it is the same case in criminal trials.

"Plan B works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb)."

still not seeing any supporting evidence. you're not doing anything but quoting other people asserting that it might prevent implantation.

"... EC could also prevent implantation ..."
--Planned Parenthood of America
[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/ec/pub-emergency-contraception.xml]

"Emergency contraceptive pill referred to simply as "emergency contraception," "ECPs," or "ECs", or "morning-after pill" are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilisation, or the subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg (zygote)."
--Wikipedia
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill]

ditto.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

"the meaning of 'proof' is more flexible than you are trying to pretend. it is also a synonym for 'evidence'."

No, "proof" does not mean "evidence."

"my links contained information about actual clinical experiments."

You haven't cited a single example of primary scientific literature, let alone one that "proves" your claim that EC never works after fertilization. All you've cited is second-hand reports of studies that failed to find a postfertilization effect, with certain types of EC and under certain conditions.

You simply made up your claim that EC never acts after fertilization out of thin air. Every reputable source on the issue, from the federal government, to Planned Parenthood, to the manufacturer of Plan B, acknowledges that EC may work after fertilization in some cases.

Posted by: Pro-Choice And Honest on April 14, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

"the meaning of 'proof' is more flexible than you are trying to pretend. it is also a synonym for 'evidence'."

No, "proof" does not mean "evidenc

see the dictionarydefinition of 'proof'.

"my links contained information about actual clinical experiments."

You haven't cited a single example of primary scientific literature, let alone one that "proves" your claim that EC never works after fertilization.

so, you don't have to meet this standard of proof, but i have to? your links contained assertions that EC might prevent implantation. i provided links that reference actual clinical research indicating that EC does not have an effect on rates of implantation for women who use EC and those who took a placebo. the manufacturer acknowledges that it might, but all you've done is quote them saying that. that's far less substantial than what i have offered so far.

All you've cited is second-hand reports of studies that failed to find a postfertilization effect, with certain types of EC and under certain conditions.

'under certain conditions'? the conditions were those of a clinical research study that was respectable enough for the population council to cite.

You simply made up your claim that EC never acts after fertilization out of thin air. Every reputable source on the issue, from the federal government, to Planned Parenthood, to the manufacturer of Plan B, acknowledges that EC may work after fertilization in some cases.

i didn't 'make up' anything out of thin air. i stated that EC is not effective at preventing implantation. i stated that it WAS effective at preventing ovulation. i also did not use the word 'never'. you are making up the claim that i did out of thin air, just like you are making up the claim out of thin air that 'proof' and 'evidence' are not synonyms. show me a link that references credible research indicating a statistically significant difference in rates of implantation for women who use EC and those who use a placebo. that would satisfy me. after all, your original claim was that there is evidence that EC works post-fertilization.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 15, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

10 times safer than finishing the pregnancy.

Posted by: Morgan on April 13, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well, not for the child. But if you are going to do it, this would be the way.

So now a easy means of abortion is available, can we now shift the date of legal abortions back?
No excuse for not taking a pill after you bonk, is there.

Posted by: McA on April 15, 2006 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINK

spacebaby, we're still waiting for your "proof" that EC never works after fertilization. We're still waiting for your "proof" that EC only ever works before fertilization. You made this claim. Substantiate it. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Carol on April 15, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

"so, you don't have to meet this standard of proof, but i have to?"

You're the one claiming that EC only ever works before fertilization. You're the one claiming EC never works after fertilization. It is up to you to prove this claim. You haven't done that. You haven't provided anything to prove that EC never works after fertilization. Furthermore, your claim contradicts every reputable authority on EC, from the federal government, to Planned Parenthood, to the drug's own manufacturer, all of which acknowledge that EC may sometimes work after fertilization. Where is your proof, spacebaby?

Posted by: Ponce de Leon on April 15, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

For the lying moron spacebaby....

"Postfertilization effect of hormonal emergency contraception.

Kahlenborn C, Stanford JB, Larimore WL.

Department of Internal Medicine, Altoona Hospital, PA, USA. kahlen@alt3.com

OBJECTIVE: To assess the possibility of a postfertilization effect in regard to the most common types of hormonal emergency contraception (EC) used in the US and to explore the ethical impact of this possibility. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A MEDLINE search (1966-November 2001) was done to identify all pertinent English-language journal articles. A review of reference sections of the major review articles was performed to identify additional articles. Search terms included emergency contraception, postcoital contraception, postfertilization effect, Yuzpe regimen, levonorgestrel, mechanism of action, Plan B. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 2 most common types of hormonal EC used in the US are the Yuzpe regimen (high-dose ethinyl estradiol with high-dose levonorgestrel) and Plan B (high-dose levonorgestrel alone). Although both methods sometimes stop ovulation, they may also act by reducing the probability of implantation, due to their adverse effect on the endometrium (a postfertilization effect). The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses.

Posted by: Walter on April 15, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Mechanism Of Action of Emergency Contraceptive Pills

"statistical evidence on the effectiveness of combined ECPs suggests that there must be a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation ..."

[Ref: Trussell J, Raymond EG. Statistical evidence concerning the mechanism of action of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:872-876.]

"Treatment with ECPs containing only levonorgestrel during the peri-ovulatory phase may fail to inhibit ovulation but nevertheless reduce the length of the luteal phase and total luteal phase LH concentrations; this observation suggests a post-fertilization contraceptive effect. ..."

[Ref: Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1058-1064.]

"...we cannot conclude that ECPs never prevent pregnancy after fertilization."

James Trussell, PhD
Director
Office of Population Research
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544
April 5, 2006

Posted by: Walter on April 15, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby, we're still waiting for your "proof" that EC never works after fertilization. We're still waiting for your "proof" that EC only ever works before fertilization. You made this claim. Substantiate it. Put up or shut up.

since you are deliberately mischaracterizing my argument, i conclude that you're trolling.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 15, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

You're the one claiming that EC only ever works before fertilization. You're the one claiming EC never works after fertilization.

i'm not going to defend an argument that i didn't make.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 15, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

For the lying moron spacebaby....

since you're personally attacking me, i am not going to interact with you. apologize, stop attacking me personally, and i will respond.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 15, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

i'm not going to defend an argument that i didn't make.

spacebaby, you lying sack of shit. It's exactly what you said. You have consistently claimed that EC works only by preventing ovulation. You have consistently claimed that EC does not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Pro-Choice has clearly demonstrated that expert opinion on the issue is that EC MAY WORK AFTER FERTILIZATION IN SOME CASES and Walter has provided references to the primary scientific literature.

Posted by: Carol on April 15, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby, you lying sack of shit. It's exactly what you said

then quote where i stated that it _never_ works after fertilization. that is not an argument that can be proven because it is essentially a philosophical one, not one open to scientific inquiry. what i said was, "it works by suppressing ovulation. if it worked at preventing implantation, then it would be effective for up to a week after sex. however, it has to be taken within three days."

where did i say i have evidence that it never prevents implantation? i did present links referencing research showing no effect on implantation. that does not, and no research ever can, prove that EC _never_ prevents fertilization because it would require an infinite number of experimental trials in which the people conducting the research could perfectly determine that EC did not, in any case, prevent implantation.

that actually would never happen because about half of fertilized eggs fail to implant anyway, so it's impossible to prove beyond all possible doubt that EC _never_ prevents implantation. scientific research can determine whether it probably does or probably does not prevent implantation.

and also -- stop calling me a liar. i didn't personally attack you, so you have no right to attack me. i am here trying to debate in good faith and being mistaken or unaware of credible research refuting my claim does not make me a liar. you're the one lying by claiming i said that i had evidence that EC 'never' works after fertilization. pro-choice quoted a bunch of links stating that it might prevent implantation, but those links didn't actually reference any research supporting that claim. that is _all_ i wanted when i asked for proof of that claim. walter provided good references. but he also called me a lying moron, and you too are resorting to personal vitriol while demanding i defend an argument i didn't make and one that is impossible to prove anyway.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 15, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

办公设备,外设
办公,外设office equipment, computer hardware
计算机办公设备硬件咨询
复印机传真机打印机一体机投影机收款机碎纸机考勤机多功能一体机工程复印机
夏普复印机东芝复印机京瓷复印机美能达复印机佳能复印机理光复印机三星打印机联想打印机爱普生打印机
三星传真机夏普传真机佳能传真机兄弟传真机松下传真机飞利浦传真机惠普打印机佳能打印机彩色打印机
松下一体机三星一体机联想一体机佳能一体机惠普一体机理光一体机理想一体机得宝一体机基士得耶一体机
东芝投影机索尼投影机日立投影机三洋投影机松下投影机夏普投影机三菱投影机3M投影机飞利浦投影机
海斯曼碎纸机科密碎纸机奥士达碎纸机密理碎纸机福尔特碎纸机多功能一体机激光打印机喷墨打印机HP一体机
officeit hardware info
复印传真打印多功能一体机投影pos机碎纸考勤
sharp复印机东芝复印机kyocera复印机minolta复印机canon复印机ricoh复印机
samsung打印机lenovo打印机epson打印机hp打印机canon打印机彩色打印机工程打印机激光打印机喷墨打印机
samsung传真机sharp传真机canon传真机brother传真机panasonic传真机philips传真机
多功能一体机激光一体机panasonic一体机samsung一体机lenovo一体机canon一体机hp一体机ricoh一体机riso一体机duplo一体机Gestetner一体机
toshiba投影机sony投影机hitachi投影机sanyo投影机panasonic投影机sharp投影机mitsubishi投影机3M投影机philips投影机

复印机,复印机维修,复印机租赁,数码复印机
办公硬件
复印机科学
硬件资讯,办公新闻
复印机北京
blog复印机
复印机blog
复印机教育
复印机资料
复印机,copier
复印机博客
复印机,电脑硬件外设
复印机,copier
复印机博客
copier,复印机
复印机教育
硬件,传真机,复印机,打印机,一体机
复印机
影印機
夏普复印机
佳能复印机
东芝复印机
京瓷复印机
理光复印机
施乐复印机
工程打印机
工程复印机
奥西复印机
传真机,激光传真机,普通纸传真机,网络传真机
传真机
传真机
传真机
传真机
传真机
松下传真机
三星传真机
兄弟传真机
夏普传真机
佳能传真机
飞利浦传真机
收款机 点钞机 考勤机 支票打印机
收款机
收款机 pos
考勤机
收款机
pos机
收银机
电子收款机
税控收款机
点钞机
考勤机
支票打印机
科密碎纸机
碎纸机
投影机
投影机
投影机
东芝投影机
ask投影机
3m美投神投影机
飞利浦投影机
plus普乐士投影机
sony索尼投影机
普乐士投影机
打印机
打印机
美能达打印机
松下打印机
施乐打印机
佳能打印机
惠普打印机
爱普生打印机
联想打印机
三星打印机
速印机,一体机,一体化速印机
一体机
一体机
一体机
多功能一体机
理想一体机
理光一体机
得宝一体机
基士得耶一体机
三星多功能一体机
佳能多功能一体机
松下多功能一体机
联想多功能一体机
惠普多功能一体机

Posted by: fdgdfg on April 16, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly